November 17, 2006

Psychic CSI - Lefties Catch Coulter Bending Space-Time!

WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 — A discussion of recent threats to judges’
safety, at a bar association conference in suburban Dallas last week,
became startlingly specific when Sandra Day O’Connor, the retired
Supreme Court justice, recounted that each justice had received in the
mail “a wonderful package of home-baked cookies” that contained “enough
poison to kill the entire membership of the court.”

Justice O’Connor’s remarks were reported on Thursday in The Star-Telegram in Fort Worth.

Although the episode was not publicly disclosed when it occurred in
April 2005, it had a public, although little-noticed, denouement last
month when the sender of the poisoned cookies was sentenced in federal
court here to 15 years in prison.

The sender, Barbara Joan March of Bridgeport, Conn., pleaded guilty
to 14 counts of “mailing injurious articles.” The 14 recipients
included the nine justices; the chiefs of staff of the Army, Navy, and
Air Force; and the director and deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The packages, containing either candy or baked goods, were laced with rat poison.

All mail received at the Supreme Court is screened, and the tainted
packages never reached the justices, said Kathleen Arberg, the court’s
public information officer. The danger posed by the packages was
immediately apparent. Each contained a typewritten letter stating
either, “I am going to kill you,” or, “We are going to kill you,” and
adding, “This is poisoned.”

The letters carried various return
addresses of people who had earlier connections with Ms. March,
including seven who attended college with her. The F.B.I. determined
that Ms. March wrote and sent the letters, typing a number of them on a
typewriter at a public library near her home.

Pretty ghastly. But let's see how some prominent lefty sites react - here is Steven D at the Booman Tribune:

Have you noticed how conservatives -- you know, the folks big on "personal responsibility" -- squeal like little mandrakes whenever someone calls attention to their culpability
in engaging in irresponsible rhetoric that specifically encourages
violent and criminal behavior? Especially when the chickens come home
to roost?

...And anyone
with two brain cells to rub together can see that there's a causal
connection there. It may not be a matter of legal culpability, but
there is a larger moral culpability at issue here that is inescapable.

Now comes today's news that someone sent a batch of poisoned cookies to the Supreme Court:

Which, I'm sure the Rick Morans of the world will tell us, has no possible connection to the following remark from Ann Coulter earlier this year:

"We need to put rat poison in Justice Stevens' creme brulee. That's just a joke, for you in the media."

I am not Rick Morans and I would never attempt to encroach on his territory, but here we go - there is no causal connection. Both Steven D, in his own comments, and Mr. Neiwert, in an UPDATE, acknowledge a tiny flaw in their cause-effect scenario - let's hand the mike to Mr. Neiwert:

NOTE: Yes,
it's true that the poisoned cookies were sent in 2005, and Coulter's
remark was in January of this year [2006]. The point is this: Coulter is one
of the leading luminaries in a sustained program of demonization
against liberals and government generally -- including so-called "judicial activists" -- for several years now.

Yes, well, whatever. Cookies were also sent to the chiefs of staff of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; and the director and deputy director of the FBI - has Ms. Coulter specifically, or other righties generally, been demonizing them?

Don't answer! We can do even better than that in demolishing this particular fact-free edifice.

Probably her real aim was to cause trouble for the people whose return
addresses she used. If she just sent threatening notes and unpoisoned
cookies, it would not have made enough trouble for her former
acquaintences.

Right the first time! And why do I say that? Well, unlike my friends in the reality-based community who can simply see evil in the world and know it is caused by righties, I am stuck with Google and Pacer (the US Court search system), and other such tedious time-wasters.

So let's check the sentencing memorandum (8 page .pdf)
for Ms. Barbara Joan March. This starts at the bottom of page six:

Third, the defendant's conduct does not appear to have been
motivated by any personal, political or professional animosity toward
the intended recipients of the letters. Rather, interviews with the
purported senders of the letters, as well as factors cited in the
presentence investigation report, suggest that the defendant's conduct
likely was motivated by a misplaced anger toward the purported senders
of the letters, former friends and colleagues who in the defendant's
mind somehow had abandoned or wronged her.1 See Presentence
Investigation Report at ¶88. The fact that the defendant chose to mail
the letters to high-level public officials in a misguided attempt to
cause more harm to the purported senders has increased her sentence by
approximately five years.2

Any questions? This DoJ press release provides a quick summary of the case as well. From the sentencing memorandum i see that Ms. March spent much of the past twenty years in prison and has previously engaged in bizarre, violent behavior.

Just by the way, I welcome suggestions for creative spellings and re-phrasings of "clown show" - I am really at a loss for words here, but I do feel as if I should put a tag on this fine effort by David N and Steven D.

If you're not interested in the reality that folks on the right regularly, and thoughtlessly, discuss eliminating liberals and inflicting violence on them; call them treasonous and the source of all the nation's ills, and depict them as monsters allied with our enemies; if you're not interested in the rather common-sensical notion that this kind of rhetoric eventually gets acted upon in the real world -- well, you're just not interested in reality.

And judging from all those smug remarks about "reality based" bloggers (not to mention your toss-off "whatever"), that seems abundantly clear.

--If you're not interested in the reality that folks on the right regularly, and thoughtlessly, discuss eliminating liberals and inflicting violence on them; call them treasonous and the source of all the nation's ills, and depict them as monsters allied with our enemies; if you're not interested in the rather common-sensical notion that this kind of rhetoric eventually gets acted upon in the real world -- well, you're just not interested in reality.--

OH Puuuuullleezz....Wah Wah...here is a kleenex...just need to win the dumb hicks with guns, god and ?....you guys - Liberals - have demonized conservatives to no end...

GOP pro-religion, against abortion, guns ect...?

Extremist.

Newly elected Dems - pro-religion, against abortion, guns ect...?

Moderate.

Meanwhile, name me the last fantasy film GOP'er produced assassinating Clinton, or as Rich McEnrore reminds...

New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi introduced Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) at a Queens College commencement ceremony as someone who would "put a bullet between the president's eyes if he thought he could get away with it."

Elk Grove Man Indicted for Threats against President Bush
Published: November 3, 2006
SACRAMENTO-- United States Attorney McGregor W. Scott announced today that a federal grand jury returned a ten-count indictment, yesterday, charging Michael Lee Braun, 51, of Elk Grove, with one count of threatening the President of the United States, one count of sending threatening communications to an individual, and eight counts of providing false information and perpetrating hoaxes.

This case is the product of an extensive investigation coordinated by the Joint Terrorism Task Force, comprised of federal, state, and local law enforcement, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Secret Service, United States Postal Inspection Service, and Sacramento Metro Fire.

According to Assistant United States Attorney Ellen V. Endrizzi, who is prosecuting the case, the indictment alleges that Braun sent a letter on March 7, 2006 threatening to kill President George W. Bush. The indictment also alleges that Braun sent a letter on June 6, 2006 to Tom Sullivan, a KFBK radio personality, that threatened to kill his family. Both letters also contained an unknown, white powder that Braun claimed was “poison” and a “death powder.” The remaining eight counts of the indictment allege that Braun sent letters containing a white powder to various hotels, organizations, and political figures as a hoax, with the intent that the recipients of those letters would believe that the powder was anthrax or some other poison. Laboratory analysis confirmed that in each instance the powder was non-toxic. """

I do not adhere to *any* labels save those that give definition to actions for others. This woman's ACTIONS are despicable in the extreme and she should be held personally accountable for such.

Putting labels on INDIVIDUALS for ideas is an attempt to restrict not only your mode of thought but to then use anything *else* that adheres to that label to use AGAINST the individual. That is dishonorable. It is an attempt at thought control.

When I see *anyone* on any part of the political spectrum to attempting to apply LABELS to IDEAS and then purport that some ACTIONS are linked to those IDEAS even when the ACTION is not carried out by the speaker of the IDEA, I find that repulsive. If you like to use that as a paradigm to slander individuals with the ACTIONS of others, then do be prepared to have your OWN political philosophy *linked* to those purporting similar and taking ACTIONS on their own which may or may not be driven by such philosophy or ideology.

The central basis of Western thought is that the Individual is absolutely responsible for their ACTIONS. In the United States we put forth that even the most reprehensible of IDEAS should be allowed so that they may be diminished and demeaned and attacked so as to have their failings show up. Attack Ann Coulter for her WORDS but if she is not 'in the know' about the ACTIONS of another to have actually tried to carry out that IDEA, then you are using a non-causal, non-substantive LINK between the two.

To then spread that over an entire spectrum of thought which covers a wide swath of ideas and concepts and purport it to be held commonly amongst such is ALSO despicable. It is tarring people unjustly as INDIVIDUALS with ACTIONS they have not explicitly supported or taken part in.

I fully support that individuals are fully and absolutely responsible for their ACTIONS or in their explicit support for the ACTIONS of others. And, as a Jacksonian that must mean that Responsibilities come FIRST, Due Process means to address actions SECOND, and my individual Rights are to be used to uphold the First and Second before I put them to my own, personal use. That is how civilization is built, supported and protected by Individuals. By tearing at individuals with Group Labels and then sticking anything one dislikes to that Label you are dishonoring that compact between We the People as it forms disunity amongst the People, follows no Due Process and is a diminishment of the Rights of those that are being pre-judged without *any* factual basis due to their individual actions. That latter demeans individuals in many areas, including one-self if you are the Great Judge of Who Gets What Label for which you then castigate them. Even if they have done nothing, supported nothing and in no way have any identification with the entire label or even a substantial part of it. By unjustly applying such a label you are diminishing your OWN conception of what is possible for individuals and restricting your OWN rights by not supporting them for OTHERS.

But then that viewpoint of mine is, apparently, not held by most of the polarized political factions who feel free to attach labels, demean what it means to be a cognizant individual, impugn character at third-hand with those that are not even supported by those they are impugning, and trying to squash the Freedoms that we enjoy by pre-limiting them to certain channels in which they can be attacked. Some how those things do *not* appear to me as attempting to "...form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility.." which are things We the People support doing in order to HAVE a United States of America. For those are OUR responsibilities as a People and Government is just *one* thing we do to sustain them. We are still fully, and completely accountable for upholding these responsibilities held in common outside of limited Government. That is what responsibilities *are*: things that guide one in the just use of one's actions.

David Niewert says: ""call them treasonous and the source of all the nation's ills, and depict them as monsters allied with our enemies; if you're not interested in the rather common-sensical notion that this kind of rhetoric eventually gets acted upon in the real world -- well, you're just not interested in reality."""

Well let me see, liberals all claim to love and suport the military, yet when these instances arise they can't seem to explain their actions.

1. John Kerry claimed our troops terrorize women and children?

2. John Kerry claimed if you don't try and get educated and are basically lazy you end up having to fight the countries wars.

3. Dick Durbin claimed our soldiers act like Hitler or PolPot.

4. The left is constantly trying to get our Armed Services kicked off college campuses..why?
Liberals have physically attacked recruiters on college campuses.

5. San Franciso just voted to kicked out ROTC from the schools? Why?

6. Every year when the Democrats controlled congress they had a vote on cutting the military by 50% across the board.

Is this supposed to get us to believe that the left embraces and supports our military?

If you don't want your patriotism or support of our military questioned, then by all means condemn these actions as anti-military and especially hurtful to the military in the middle of the GWOT.

If you're not interested in the reality that folks on the right regularly, and thoughtlessly, discuss eliminating liberals and inflicting violence on them; call them treasonous and the source of all the nation's ills, and depict them as monsters allied with our enemies; if you're not interested in the rather common-sensical notion that this kind of rhetoric eventually gets acted upon in the real world -- well, you're just not interested in reality.

Yeah, yeah. How many conservative speakers are never even scheduled at college campuses because the security situation would be hopeless? As a specific example, who started the Minuteman brawl at Columbia? Why not put up a post or two about left-inspired violence? Or are you seriously imagining it is only the right that spawns this? (I presume you are not that detached, but who knows.)

Help me out - do you stand by your interpretation of this rat story as an example of right-inspired violence, or do you admit it is a weak launching point for a rant about violent-onciting righties?

And do you think we shouldf all turn around and write "Here is an incident that had nothing to do with Ann Coulter, but let's trash her anyway"? Pretty coherent, David.

In addition, its not just negative comments about our military, but also at a minimum nuetral and sometimes supportive of our military's enemies.

Howard Dean thought the military used too much force on Uday and Qusay Hussein.

Howard Dean thought Osama Bin Laden might not be guilty and deserved the benefit of the doubt, he thought we shouldn't 'pre-judge' him as if declaring war against soemone is a 'prejudgement'.

Then there's Democrat Dingell who says:
Dingell proclaimed himself neutral. "I don't take sides for or against Hezbollah; I don't take sides for or against Israel." Asked, "You're not against Hezbollah?" Dingell answers, "No..."
REMEMBER HEZBOLLAH HAS KILLED HUNDREDS OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS, yet Dingell can't seem to find it in his heart to take sides between a terroist group that killed hundeds of American and an elected democrat country.

I guess what the left is saying, That Ann Coulter and the others are responsible for attacks on Liberals then they must also believe that the liberal politicians and press attacks on our troops are causing the troops to be attacked and killed by the Islamic terrorists.

So it isn't our troops being in Iraq that causes terrorism, but liberal anti-military and anti-American commentary.

For folks who are intent on remaiming fact-free: an equally plausible alternative view is that Ms. March was horrified that Bush was "selected, not elected" in 2000 and then led us into war and repressed our civil liberties - hence the targetting of the FBI and military as well as the Supreme Court.

Personally, I am appalled that the left could stand by silently while one of their own, in response to five years of demonization of Scalia and the conservative court, would engage in this deplorable act, blah, blah, blah.

Jerry, Tex, David, at all - care to apologize on behalf of the left, or don't you take violence seriously?

The reason for the double standard wrt violent jokes is that they are more afraid of the right than we are of them. Here anyway. Despite the taunting over "look who's afraid of those big bad terrorists", they really are more concerned about rightwingers taking away their fun than islamofascists taking away their lives.

It's why they are so big on gun control. You thought is was because of crime? Ha. That's what they want you to think. Criminals favor gun control so their law abiding victims will be easier targets.

If a Republican said that he loathed abortion, tried to cut funding for abortions, voted to remove all abortion clinics from the city and constantly complained and made disparaging remarks about the abortion industry, some liberal somewhere may get the idea that he was
ANTI-ABORTION.

Same goes for ANTI-MILITARY.

And yes, I am questioing your patriotism and if that bothers you, then start taking Americas' side once in a while.

Insert the President of the Vice President in the place of Justice Stevens in Ann Coulter's funny joke about rat poison, and you have a federal crime. A man in Aspen was arrested in front of his 7 year old son for telling VP Cheney "I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible." That was silly, but it shows how sensitive we are these days to verbal threats. Calling Cheny "reprehensible" is considerably less threatening than suggesting that someone send Justice Stevens rat poison.

Certain people get their jollies (or make a living) skating (or attempting to skate) just this side of incitement. On our side we have the fellow who was stalking George Allen. On your side we have, well, the usual suspects who, in the process of ranting about "traitors" and such, skate over the line and encourage readers or listeners to take matters into their own hands. Laura Ingraham's suggestion that her listeners tie up the democrat's voter protection hotline is one small example.

Causation is, as you point out, unprovable. Still, as we have discussed in the past, there is a reason for things like background checks and waiting periods for gun purchases.I don't want Homer Simpson to be able to buy a gun without a waiting period because "he is angry NOW."

But assuming the press reports are right, it's a terrible thing to say, and it unfortunate. And that's why -- there was an earlier question about has the President said anything to people in his own party -- they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.

"New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi introduced Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) at a Queens College commencement ceremony as someone who would "put a bullet between the president's eyes if he thought he could get away with it."

Posted by: richard mcenroe | November 17, 2006 at 05:23 PM

So very true Texas Taqiya,What one would expect from the "hilarity based community".

A man in Aspen was arrested in front of his 7 year old son for telling VP Cheney "I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible." That was silly, but it shows how sensitive we are these days to verbal threats. Calling Cheny "reprehensible" is considerably less threatening than suggesting that someone send Justice Stevens rat poison.

actually the truth is:

A man in Aspen was arrested in front of his 7 year old son for telling VP Cheney "I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible." That was silly, but it shows how sensitive we are these days to verbal threats. Calling Cheny "reprehensible" is considerably less threatening than suggesting that someone send Justice Stevens rat poison.

The Secret Service is still declining to explain its original comment that Howards' behavior "wasn't quite right." Meanwhile, in fairness, there's at least one minor inconsistency in Howards' account. Howards told the Associated Press (via Nexis) that he "may" have touched Cheney.

Remember the scene in Patton where the good general instructs his translator to tell a Russian general that he doesn't care to drink with a Russian SOB. The Russian replies something along the lines of "you're one, too." They have an understanding.

The left thinks the right is a pack of SOBs and vice versa. The problem comes in trying to make the case rationally. There's just not good empirical data. Plenty of anecdotal evidence, though, that goes both ways. So we pick a side.

Dave N got caught trying to dress up his prejudice with a silly argument. He should just admit the mistake and shut up. We already understand that he thinks the right is a pack of bastards.

Niewert has been free-basing or something; the liberals are the ones physically attacking Coulter and others on college campuses like Columbia, where if you disagree with Niewert and his leftie buddies, you do not have the right of free speech.

Or so Niewert's friends would say.

And the garbled syntax of gargling Sen. Leahy has recently been interpreted as taking away Laura Ingraham's right to a radio show. For the usual specious reasons factitious fools like Leahy propound.

NO FAULT ON THE LEFT! [Mark Rudd to myself when he was a guest at my apartment in Ann Arbor thirty-eight years ago. Also from Mark: "Dare to Cheat, Dare to Win." Plus he smoked all my dope!]

Niewert's graduated to a bong, but his reality-basing is the same as Rudd's.

"Insert the President of the Vice President in the place of Justice Stevens in Ann Coulter's funny joke about rat poison, and you have a federal crime."

Which would be relevant if Tom were defending Ann for those comments, which, I don't see him doing so here. All he's done is point out the impossibility of those comments having anything to do with this instance.

- Hey guys. Its a hell of a lot safer to scream, and rant, and demonize the other person, when it's not likely they're going to whip out a sword and cut off your head. The Left intellectually ingages in "substitution" constantly just from a standpoint of survival.

- Sometimes I personally think they put too much credence in the idea we'll always put up with it and act civil. I wouldn't bet the farm on it, but then the alternative, fighting back against the real enemy is indeed perilous, when you are afraind down to your core.

So, if unelected supreme court justices usurp legislative authority, in conjuntion with a third plus 1 of the Senate, in violation of the Constitution, what do you do? At that point, assassination becomes the only option. Rational people will work to keep unelected judges from usurping the authority of other branches, or if judges clearly are bent on that path, will impeach them.

In the immortal words of Ben Franklin, at the constitutional convention: "If the President could not be removed by Impeachment, he could always be removed by Assassination." Does anyone think that Ben wanted to assassinate a president?

Impeachment is there, as an encouragement to keep the number of assassinations down. The knife and the claw were here long before us. Politics, by which we agree to act using discussion, consensus, procedure, is the highest creation of the human animal. When someone had to resort to assassination, he is, nearly by definition, pretty far into the violent tail of the bell shaped curve.

Assassination remains, a tool of last resort for sane people. Judges, Senators, Congressmen, Governors, and Presidents should all act as trustees of the People, not as tyrants.

The only thing that's entertaining about Ann Coulter is her ability to get under the skin of lefties, like this David Niewjerk, and push their hot buttons. The resulting foaming-mouth spittle that ensues reveals the utter lack of evidence or logic that the non-reality based community relies upon.

If you're not interested in the reality that folks on the right regularly, and thoughtlessly, discuss eliminating liberals and inflicting violence on them; call them treasonous and the source of all the nation's ills, and depict them as monsters allied with our enemies;

Dave

Lefties are not monsters or the source of all the nation's ills. You are the yappy little dogs nipping at our ankles while we are trying to cure the nation's ills. You give yourselves too much credit.

Wait. The notes were typed on a typewriter in a PUBLIC LIBRARY? How did they get that info? Did some public librarian violate the I HATE BUSH tenets and release such info to the feds? Inquiring minds want to know.

It's more of the same old revolutionary socialism only in Allah's name.

The Iranian revolution was a synthesis of Islamic fundamentalism and European Third World socialism.

...

MANY ELEMENTS in the ideology of al Qaeda--set forth most clearly in Osama bin Laden's 1996 Declaration of War Against America--derive from this same mix. Indeed, in Arab intellectual circles today, bin Laden is already being likened to an earlier icon of Third World revolution who renounced a life of privilege to head for the mountains and fight the American oppressor, Che Guevara. According to Cairo journalist Issandr Elamsani, Arab leftist intellectuals still see the world very much in 1960s terms. They are all ex-Sorbonne, old Marxists, he says, who look at everything through a postcolonial prism.

Insert the President of the Vice President in the place of Justice Stevens in Ann Coulter's funny joke about rat poison, and you have a federal crime. A man in Aspen was arrested in front of his 7 year old son for telling VP Cheney "I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible." That was silly, but it shows how sensitive we are these days to verbal threats. Calling Cheny "reprehensible" is considerably less threatening than suggesting that someone send Justice Stevens rat poison.

From the Washington Times, 12/27/96, page A5.)
"God will hold you to account, Mr. President."
"--Rev. Rob Shenck, to President Clinton during a Christmas Eve church service at the Washington National Cathedral, referring to the president's veto of a ban on partial-birth abortion. After the service, Rev. Shenck was detained by Secret Service agents who accused him of threatening the President's life. No charges were filed."

and

(Excerpt from an AP wire story dated October 30, 1996)
"CHICAGO (AP) -- ... (two people) were arrested July 2 at the Taste of Chicago fair after President Clinton approached them and ... responded with a rude remark.

She said the remark was, ' "You suck and those boys died,'' ' in reference to the June 25 attack of a U.S. installation in Saudi Arabia that left 19 American airmen dead. Secret Service agents initially said they heard something else that could have been taken as a threat against the president. Police said the (couple) were arrested for persisting to shout profanities while being questioned."

(All charges were later dropped.)

But maybe Rove or Coulter jumped in the time machine and used their mind-control machines on the Secret Service during the Clinton Administration as well. And to think this was one of the stronger actions taken during the Clinton years regarding the Khobar Towers bombing.

I take it from your argument that you BELIEVE that John Kerry saying our troops terrorize Iraqi women and Children, and Dick Durbins calling our troops Pol Pot and Hitler, and John Murtha saying they are murderers who kill in cold blood, and the left and the media playing up Abu Gyraib and the Koran toilet flush, tht you honestly believe that THEY HAVE INCITED ATTACKS ON OUR TROOPS AND HAVE GOTTEN AMERICAN SOLDIERS KILLED BY THEIR ACTIONS.

Glad we cleared that up.

Now if Justice Stevens dies of rat poison because of Ann Coulter we can address her actions, but so far its just our soldiers that the liberals are actually getting killed.
Now how do you want to address what to do about Kerry, Durbin, Murtha and the restof the left that actually have real blood on their hands according to your statements.

they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.

Shoot yeah. Instead we should do a movie about the assasination of a sitting president. And at the premier, we should have loud applause when the bullet pierces the president. Remarks be damned, let's all have pictures instead.

Late in the week I was prepared to declare Congressional Republicans winners of a perceived race to 'Stupid.' It appears this race, this mad rush to make ridiculously stupid decisions that negatively impact the prospects for both political parties moving forward might not be the 100-yd dash I thought it.

Glenn noted yesterday with this post, what he referred to as a Democrat "circular firing squad." Indeed:

FANS OF ALCEE HASTINGS are spreading rumors about Jane Harman that don't seem to be true. Tom Maguire is on the case, remarking: "let me offer a steaming mug of reality to the reality based community, from the NY Times, with helpful emphasis added."

I'll just note that, true or not, the Democrats don't seem to have waited long before descending into circular-firing-squad mode.

UPDATE: Plus, Ann Coulter acquires the power to bend space and time, and incidentally to turn lefty bloggers into Emily Litella. Well, it's not the first time that's happened.

The TM post is especially interesting reading as it devolves into a bizarre little contest in the comments, featuring a cameo by the King of the Sockpuppets himself, Glenn Greenwald with a rehashing of old arguments that nobody's making about Jane Harman as head of the Intelligence Committee.

So apparently this race to be the dumbest leaders in Congress will be longer than I thought. Just when I was ready to declare the Republicans as the winner, we enter turn 2 and see the Dems about to retake the lead.

I think the lefties are just mad because the right has women like Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Condi Rice and Michelle Malkin....
while they get to enjoy their representatives of the fairer sex; Eleanor Smeal, Donna Shalala, Madeline Albright and Janet Reno.

And you wondered why so many on the left are gay or sodomizing their interns.

Jane, browsing Instapundit I just noticed the blog post you are referring to at mydogsaresmarter.blogspot.com, which winds up being all about this thread at JOM. (Sorry, don't know how to link to stuff). Now if Glenn Reynolds links to JOM I think that phenomenom is called an Instalance. But when Glenn Reynold's links to a post which is essentially a link to another post (in this case JOM), is the second post now considered an Instalance squared, or the square root of an Instalance?

I ask this important question because at JOM this week we are learning the New Math, such as (a) Pelosi + Candidate (X) = Win-Win
and how whem Murtha counted his winning votes up "Eyeball to Eyeball" he was obviously correct assuming Jack Murtha is a Negative Integer.

We have likewise witnessed Einsteins E = MC squared conjecture, physically demonstrated by Anne Coulter, that if a Republican makes a joke about giving a judge rat poison, it warps space and time and causes someone a year prior to actually give a judge rat poison. Obviously this is because Anne Coulter speaks with enormous gravity, and we'll recall Professor Einstein taught us it was enormous gravity that caused space-time to warp. This also explains why when Demo's speak of murdering the President it is simply irrelevant harmless joking, because since they speak with so little gravity, it's effects are undetectable and therefore unable to influence any nutjobs even in a Newtonian Universe. QED!

Jim Lindgren:[R]edistributionists in the general public [report] being more angry, sad, lonely, worried, and restless, and less happy, at ease, and interested in life.

He goes further on how this anger manifests itself:

Not only do redistributionists report more anger, but they report that their anger lasts longer. Further, when asked about the last time they were angry, strong redistributionists were more than twice as likely as strong opponents of leveling to admit that they responded to their anger by plotting revenge.

Great job, Just One. You really lived up to your title this time. Guess you don't buy the left's argument that a made-up tale can advance a greater truth just as much as facts if it shows an emotional truth, al la Regoberta Mancho, et al. (Yes, I know I probably misspelled the great lady's name. Forgive me.)